You're the third person who's said this, but what about the large body of parapsychology research that's been going on for 100+ years? Why doesn't that count?
Every instance that I'm familiar with was either directly debunked or suffers from really obvious experimental design problems. I've never seen a single well-designed controlled study that shows unambiguous paranormal results.
Every instance that I'm familiar with was either directly debunked or suffers from really obvious experimental design problems.
Here's a skeptic saying the opposite: that there are no methodological flaws so we must find some other grounds for disagreeing: https://web.archive.org/web/20170616174455/http://mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.html
PS: He says: "The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present. Just the same, it is impossible in principle to say that any particular experiment or experimental series is completely free from possible flaws.... We also agree that the SAIC experiments appear to be free of the more obvious and better known flaws that can invalidate the results of parapsychological investigations. We agree that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments are too large and consistent to be dismissed as statistical flukes.... I agree with Jessica Utts that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments and in the recent ganzfeld studies probably cannot be dismissed as due to chance. Nor do they appear to be accounted for by multiple testing, file-drawer distortions, inappropriate statistical testing or other misuse of statistical inference. I do not rule out the possibility that some of this apparent departure from the null hypothesis might simply reflect the failure of the underlying model to be a truly adequate model of the experimental situation....." – so I don't think it's valid to say that all the well-known research "suffers from really obvious experimental design problems" when peer-reviews by its opponents claim the opposite.
I'm discounting parapsychology because there is no scientific evidence of any kind
I can't confidently say something doesn't exist (e.g. "There are definitely no pink monkeys in Madagascar! I've never seen any!") if I have never searched. It seems weird to say "there is no scientific evidence of any kind" when there is, in abundance.
When you say "there is no scientific evidence of any kind", do you actually mean "there is no scientific evidence of the kind I like"? Or do you mean "I have never looked"?
Link me a peer-reviewed study that proves the existence of telepathy and premonitions and I will retract my statement.
Just off the top of my head, not necessarily the best/only ones:
or just look at ANY issue of the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research or the Journal of Parapsychology. Are you claiming these journals do not EXIST?
Chance would dictate that the participant would guess correctly 25% of the time. The results showed a 26.6% hit rate. This is already easily explainable by pure chance.
"In a total of 6,000 trials, there were 1,559 hits (26.7%), significantly above the chance expectation of 25%" – the p value in that case is 0.041
I won't be investigating your other sources, because there is no evidence
"I will not look at the evidence because there is no evidence"..... thank you for conceding have a nice day.
Magic isn't real. Your expectation for random people online to look through X amount of random studies reads the same as anti-vax garbage. Go talk to people in the field and publish and argue with them about this information if you really think it matters. Otherwise you're trying to convince a bunch of low information amateurs who don't really have the background for the conversation. Which frankly leads me to heavily doubt all that you have to say.
You've had people be very rude to you in this thread, which I think is undeserved despite the fact that I also think your position is unequivocally false, but Jewish_Cuban here was being extremely reasonable in his critique of your approach.
26.7% really doesn't strike me as significant. Certainly not enough to be convincing of such an amazing claim on its own. It does mean the study is worth scrutinizing to rule out any issues.
You're the third person who's said this, but what about the large body of parapsychology research that's been going on for 100+ years? Why doesn't that count?
Every instance that I'm familiar with was either directly debunked or suffers from really obvious experimental design problems. I've never seen a single well-designed controlled study that shows unambiguous paranormal results.
Here's a skeptic saying the opposite: that there are no methodological flaws so we must find some other grounds for disagreeing: https://web.archive.org/web/20170616174455/http://mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.html
PS: He says: "The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present. Just the same, it is impossible in principle to say that any particular experiment or experimental series is completely free from possible flaws.... We also agree that the SAIC experiments appear to be free of the more obvious and better known flaws that can invalidate the results of parapsychological investigations. We agree that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments are too large and consistent to be dismissed as statistical flukes.... I agree with Jessica Utts that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments and in the recent ganzfeld studies probably cannot be dismissed as due to chance. Nor do they appear to be accounted for by multiple testing, file-drawer distortions, inappropriate statistical testing or other misuse of statistical inference. I do not rule out the possibility that some of this apparent departure from the null hypothesis might simply reflect the failure of the underlying model to be a truly adequate model of the experimental situation....." – so I don't think it's valid to say that all the well-known research "suffers from really obvious experimental design problems" when peer-reviews by its opponents claim the opposite.
deleted by creator
mom the vampires and the ghosts are arguing about telepathy!!
deleted by creator
New bit: hexbear, emphasis on hexing people
Premonitions about the output of a RNG, significant results to the p<0.01 level: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/psp-a0021524.pdf
Meta-analysis of ganzfeld studies: https://sci-hub.ru/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.424
Will you retract your statement now?
shot:
chaser:
deleted by creator
I can't confidently say something doesn't exist (e.g. "There are definitely no pink monkeys in Madagascar! I've never seen any!") if I have never searched. It seems weird to say "there is no scientific evidence of any kind" when there is, in abundance.
When you say "there is no scientific evidence of any kind", do you actually mean "there is no scientific evidence of the kind I like"? Or do you mean "I have never looked"?
Just off the top of my head, not necessarily the best/only ones:
https://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/papers/A-Rapid-Online-Telepathy-Test.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20230929002713/https://www.parapsychologypress.org/jparticle/jp-86-1-125-134
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris-Roe/publication/233705929_A_Review_of_Dream_ESP_Studies_Conducted_Since_the_Maimonides_Dream_ESP_Programme/links/575ed85c08aed884621b7c7d/A-Review-of-Dream-ESP-Studies-Conducted-Since-the-Maimonides-Dream-ESP-Programme.pdf
or just look at ANY issue of the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research or the Journal of Parapsychology. Are you claiming these journals do not EXIST?
deleted by creator
"In a total of 6,000 trials, there were 1,559 hits (26.7%), significantly above the chance expectation of 25%" – the p value in that case is 0.041
"I will not look at the evidence because there is no evidence"..... thank you for conceding have a nice day.
It's just literally impossible lol
Magic isn't real. Your expectation for random people online to look through X amount of random studies reads the same as anti-vax garbage. Go talk to people in the field and publish and argue with them about this information if you really think it matters. Otherwise you're trying to convince a bunch of low information amateurs who don't really have the background for the conversation. Which frankly leads me to heavily doubt all that you have to say.
Don't be rude.
Nah you kinda deserve it though. Your false ideas are at best an idle distraction, at worst actively harmful.
Don't be rude.
You've had people be very rude to you in this thread, which I think is undeserved despite the fact that I also think your position is unequivocally false, but Jewish_Cuban here was being extremely reasonable in his critique of your approach.
It's a question of evidence. We'll know that from the evidence
but being rude is praxis
deleted by creator
shouldnt have gotten vaxxed, now you cant
26.7% really doesn't strike me as significant. Certainly not enough to be convincing of such an amazing claim on its own. It does mean the study is worth scrutinizing to rule out any issues.
https://www.graphpad.com/guides/prism/latest/statistics/common_misinterpretation_of_a_p_value.htm
I just ran a script to generate 6000 random numbers between 0 and 1, then count what proportion were below 0.25. One result was as low as 23.9%
deleted by creator
I agree p=0.041 is not very conclusive.
I'll also note that saying the evidence should be approached as an "amazing claim" is explicitly saying you bring a biased approach to the evidence.
No one study is conclusive really, that's why we need meta-analyses